Author
Topic: What 3 lenses do you dream of and long to own? (Read 17588 times)

I would probably go for the new canon 600mm f4 II, 200-400 if it ever comes out and as a final fantasy the sigma 200-500 f2.8 if I didn't need to think about money. In real life I would still like to pick up the canon 500 f4 version 1 .

The birders trio. If Canon ever releases a 14-24 f/2.8 L, that might throw a wrench in the mix. I already own the 16-35mm f/2.8 L II, but that extra ultra wide angle 14mm focal length is just so appealing. You can do a lot with that kind of scene breadth and a FF camera. However...since it doesn't actually exist...the above three stand.

What's your take on the suggestion, which seems to be backed up by TDP's ISO 12233 crops, that the 600 II with 1.4x III, which is 840mm f/5.6, is optically at least as good as the 800mm f/5.6? The 600+1.4 would also be much lighter.

What's your take on the suggestion, which seems to be backed up by TDP's ISO 12233 crops, that the 600 II with 1.4x III, which is 840mm f/5.6, is optically at least as good as the 800mm f/5.6? The 600+1.4 would also be much lighter.

Hmm. I hadn't read TDP's review of the lens yet. I'll have to check it out. I guess I'm a tad surprised...the 800mm lens is still one of Canon's newer lenses (from 2008 or 2009?) I would have figured it was just as optically superior as the 600 f/4 II, as the 800/5.6 was kind of the first lens in the new generation of 4-stop IS telephoto lenses. If the 600+1.4 is just as good, well sure, I'd skip the 800mm.

OMG. There is a very noticable difference. The 800mm, for all its quality, looks a bit soft compared to the 600II+1.4. There does seem to be a touch more CA in the 600 combo, though...not sure if thats the lens or the TC (probably the latter). Regardless, that 600mm f/4 L II is an amazing work of optical engineering, for sure. I'll happily drop the 800mm from my list. Guess that means I can add in the hypothetical 14-24...or possibly the 200-400 (although I'd like to see that thing and hear a bit more about its IQ first.)

If the average photographer were 11 meters tall, the 600mm would probably be the most desired lens. And so it makes sense that, since we're mostly under 2 meters, a 200mm is the most desired. And even the 200mm sounds like it's heft is a bit of a limitation.

If the average photographer were 11 meters tall, then the 600mm would probably be the most desired lens. And so it makes sense that, since we're mostly under 2 meters, a 200mm is the most desired. And even the 200mm sounds like it's heft is a bit of a limitation.

If the average photographer were 11 meters tall, the 600mm would probably be the most desired lens. And so it makes sense that, since we're mostly under 2 meters, a 200mm is the most desired. And even the 200mm sounds like it's heft is a bit of a limitation.

Doh! The American here (me) got his meters wrong. What I meant to say was that a 6 meter tall person would find the 600mm to be a good proportional fit.